SPE-178447-MS

Behind-Casing Cement Void Volumetric Evaluation

Yike Hu and Weijun Guo, Halliburton

Copyright 2015, Society of Petroleum Engineers

This paper was prepared for presentation at the SPE Thermal Well Integrity and Design Symposium held in Banff, Alberta, Canada, 2325 November 2015.

This paper was selected for presentation by an SPE program committee following review of information contained in an abstract submitted by the author(s). Contents
of the paper have not been reviewed by the Society of Petroleum Engineers and are subject to correction by the author(s). The material does not necessarily reflect
any position of the Society of Petroleum Engineers, its officers, or members. Electronic reproduction, distribution, or storage of any part of this paper without the written
consent of the Society of Petroleum Engineers is prohibited. Permission to reproduce in print is restricted to an abstract of not more than 300 words; illustrations may
not be copied. The abstract must contain conspicuous acknowledgment of SPE copyright.

Abstract
During the completion of well drilling, cement is pumped into the annulus between the casing and
formation to provide zonal isolation and a pressure barrier. The cement integrity inside the annulus is
crucial for environmental and safety concerns. One aspect in the evaluation of cement integrity includes
the determination of how much void exists inside the cement. This manuscript describes a sub-surface
evaluation technique to estimate the cement void volume behind the casing using a gamma ray spectra
indicator. The tool includes a radioactive gamma source, a gamma ray detector, and associated electronics.
The target under investigation is a layered structure that consists of single or multiple layers of casing,
cement in the annulus space, and the formation.
Monte Carlo N-Particle (MCNP) modeling, based on high energy photons transport, was conducted to
simulate the energy spectrum deposited on the gamma ray detector. The various cement integrities were
represented by a different void volume inside the cement. The detector responses change as the void
volume within the cement changes. A spectra indicator was defined to describe the change of the spectra
shape. The correspondence between the cement void volume and the spectra indicator, known as the
quality curve, was generated through analysis of detector responses from a series of basic structures of
known cement integrity, which were built through extensive computer modeling. When cement of
unknown integrity is investigated, its spectra indicator can be computed from the recorded gamma ray
detector spectra. The cement void volume behind the casing is determined by correlating the spectra
indicator with the pre-generated quality curve.

Introduction
A cement barrier behind steel pipe is critically important for health, safety, and environment (HSE)
concerns and for the economics for wells with cased-hole completions. Cement bonding with casing is the
primary barrier for preventing pressure communication between the formation and the wellbore. Full
cement coverage in the annular space without channeling provides zonal isolation to maximize production
efficiency. Well corrosion, more often than not, also correlates with poor cement quality. Techniques that
provide quality indicators are important for operators to make early intervention decisions without
incurring a large operational cost. For plugging and abandonment (P&A) operations, the exact location of
cement top drives the job planning and provides cost saving by optimizing pulling forces required for the
operation equipment.
2 SPE-178447-MS

The acoustic techniques using sound waves have been used for evaluating cement quality. The early
techniques applied sonic waves and measured amplitude attenuations to interpret cement bond quality
(Pardue et al. 1962). The application of variable-density logs extended the measurement sensitivity to
cement channeling in the annual space between layers of casing or between the casing and the formation.
The ultrasonic measurement was introduced for improved azimuthal coverage (Havira 1982). Measure-
ments with flexural mode attenuation also became commercially available.
For most of the existing acoustic solutions for cement evaluation, several technical and operation
factors remain as challenges. The measurement of cement bond substantiates from the differences of wave
reflection behaviors, but it also leads to false-positive interpretations when a micro-annulus exists (Jutten
and Hayman 1993). The cement channeling measurements are often sensitive to borehole parameters
(Shaposhnikov and Findlater 2013, Batcheller 2013). The use of cement of different bulk densities in the
same completion job also requires the combination of ultrasonic and flexural attenuation measurements
(Cai et al. 2014).
This paper presents results from a recent feasibility study of cement void volumetric evaluation using
a nuclear tool. The measurement theory is first introduced, the system designs and modeling methods are
discussed in great detail, and then simulation results and analysis are presented.

Statement of Theory
Nuclear logs have been used in the oil industry from almost the beginning of well logging history. The
gamma-gamma density tools have been used extensively to accurately measure apparent formation
density (Zak and Smith 1959). This measurement provides fundamentally important inputs to petrophysi-
cal applications for both conventional and unconventional reservoirs.
A density tool typically consists of a radioisotope, Cs-137, and one or two scintillation gamma
detectors. The measurement theory has been well documented in the literature (Tittman and Wahl 1964;
Wahl et al. 1964; Ellis et al. 1985; Ellis 1990; Minette et al. 1986; Moake 1991); these sources are
included here for completeness.
When the high energy gamma ray enters the formation, it interacts with formation material through
three major interactions: photoelectric absorption, Compton scattering, and pair production. In the energy
range in which the density tool works (660 keV), only the first two interactions are relevant. The
photoelectric absorption is the interaction between the incident gamma ray and atoms. It strongly depends
on the gamma ray energy and the atomic number (Z) of elements associated with the formation. For the
earth formation (relative low Z number), the photoelectric absorption is dominant below 100 keV. The
Compton scattering is the interaction between the gamma ray and individual electrons. This is the
dominant interaction for the gamma-gamma measurement technique. The probability of interactions is
described by a constant of proportionality: the cross section. The cross section depends on the energy of
the incoming radiation, the type of interaction, the material, the angle between the incoming radiation
direction, and the resultant radiation direction. The interactions result in the attenuation of gamma ray
intensity, which is stated as shown in Eq. (1):
Eq. (1)

Where N0 is the initial number of photons, N is the existing number of photons, n is the number of
scatters per scattering, x is the distance gamma ray travels, and is the total cross section from all
interactions. Because the primary interaction is the Compton scattering and its cross section changes
slowly in the few hundreds keV energy range, the total cross section can be approximated with the total
Compton scattering cross section. A new electron density index can be defined as shown in Eq. (2):
Eq. (2)
SPE-178447-MS 3

The electron density is approximately the same as the bulk density for most of the bulk material, but
there is significant difference when water is present. Using the electron density definition, the gamma ray
attenuation law has a new form, as shown in Eq. (3):
Eq. (3)

Eq. (3) is the fundamental attenuation law governing the gamma density tool measurement. The density
logging tool directly responds to the electron density in the formation.
The modern density devices typically record the gamma spectrum to a histogram of more than 200
energy channels. To calculate the formation density, the measured spectrum is binned into several energy
windows of a wide energy regime. For cased-hole applications, the gamma spectrum of fine energy
resolution may carry more information about casing and cement other than formation density. In this
feasibility study, a prototype tool was designed and modeled with the Monte Carlo MCNP code. The
preliminary analysis indicated that the measurement is sensitive to cement channeling. The gamma sensor
can also be combined with a collimator; the source-detector spacing can also be further optimized for void
depth profiling.

Modeling Methods and System Design

The MCNP program (Briesmeister 2000), which was developed by Los Alamos National Laboratory for
neutron, electron, or photon transport, was used to simulate the detector response with various cement
integrities. The MCNP codes accounts for incoherent and coherent scattering, the possibility of fluores-
cent emission after photoelectric absorption, absorption in pair production with local emission of
annihilation radiation, and Bremsstrahlung. It simulates individual particle histories and yields informa-
tion about certain specified quantities of interest, usually integral quantities. The Monte Carlo modeling
has been widely adopted to simulate tool response in the nuclear well logging industry for applications,
such as gamma-ray density porosity and neutron carbon oxygen (C/O) ratio. It can be used to model the
responses of existing logging tools in complex environments, or to model next-generation tools to
optimize design parameters. Its accuracy in modeling borehole environments and tool responses has
gained credibility in tool design and new algorithm development (Watson 1983; Moake 2011).
In this manuscript, a tool design that is similar to the concept of the downhole nuclear density tool was
proposed and optimized using the MCNP modeling. The intent is to increase the sensitivity of detector
response to the cement annulus integrity, as shown in Fig. 1. Fig. 1 illustrates a cross-sectional diagram
of a cased wellbore in a subterranean formation. The wellbore is lined with casing string. An annulus is
formed between the exterior of the casing and the formation wall. Cement is set inside the annulus. Two
types of downhole logging tools are placed against the interior of the casing string. Fig. 1 (a) shows the
detector placed close to the gamma ray source, and Fig. 1 (b) shows the detector placed far away from
the gamma ray source. The downhole logging tool comprises a gamma source Cs-137 for emitting gamma
radiation. A detector made of sodium iodide (NaI) single crystal is placed at a distance from the logging
source. A tungsten metal shield surrounds the detector and source. The entire tool is secured with stainless
steel pressure housing. Emitted from the gamma source, the high energy photons are detected by the
detector after interacting with the contents behind casing. The collimator in front of the source and
detector confine the paths of high energy photons. The size of collimator, its relative position to the
detector crystal, and its angle toward the formation determine the amount of gamma rays measured by the
detector. By adjusting these three parameters, the gamma ray spectra recorded by the detector is optimized
for the cement integrity evaluation, which will increase the spectrum count rates, reduce the spectrum
dependence to the formation properties, and enhance the spectrum sensitivity to the cement quality inside
the annulus.
4 SPE-178447-MS

Figure 1System figure. Configuration of nuclear tool used in downhole cement evaluation. The tool is placed against the casing string
with cement and formation behind casing. The high energy photons are emitted from the gamma ray source, interacting with the casing
and materials behind and scattered back to the detector, as indicated by the arrows. (a) is an example with the detector placed close
to the gamma source; (b) is an example with the detector placed far away from the gamma source

The MCNP program was compiled to simulate the measurement obtained with a logging tool inside the
cased-hole for a particular completion profile. The borehole diameter is 8.5 in. The casing thickness is 0.3
in. The inner casing diameter is 4.9 in. The casing weight is 32.2 lb/ft. Sandstone of various porosities was
used to study the formation dependence of the tool response. For the spectra simulated for cement
evaluation, the formation is selected as 30 pu sandstone. In the modeling configuration, the tool was
placed against the inner casing to remove any standoff and borehole effects. Fig. 2 shows the three
measurement scenarios that the downhole logging tool will detect during the cement evaluation process.
Fig. 2 (a) is referred to as a full-cement, because the cement completely fills the annulus between the
casing string and the formation. The downhole logging tool is shown abutted to the casing string for
emitting gamma rays and receiving gamma ray spectrum associated with the contents behind casing. Fig.
2 (c) is referred to as no-cement because the annulus contains no cement. The annulus may be filled with
some other substance; in this simulation, the annulus is filled with water. In some sections of the wellbore,
the annulus is neither full-cement nor no-cement, but instead comprises both gaps and cement, as shown
in Fig. 2 (b). The wellbore shown in Fig. 2 (b) includes a subterranean formation, casing string, and
annulus. The annulus contains both cement and gap, which is referred to as gap-cement. As shown, the
gap is adjacent to the casing string and continuous around the diameter of the annulus. The gap can also
be discontinuous and positioned at any location in the annulus. Although in an actual case, the gap could
be filled with brine, mud sediments, or water, for purpose of the MCNP simulation, the gap was filled with
fresh water.
SPE-178447-MS 5

Figure 2Cased-hole annulus shown with full-cement (a), gap-cement (b), and no-cement (c) scenarios

Results
The sensitivity of the system to the cement integrity inside the annulus between the casing string and
formation wall is a feature optimized through the tool design. When the tool is insensitive to the formation
properties, the gamma ray spectrum measured in the detector provides information about the cement
annulus integrity. Essentially, this is a problem of depth of investigation. It is also most sensitive to the
source and detector spacing, which is shown by comparing the simulated spectra from two types of tool
design. One design is a CLOSE detector, which is placed 5 in. away from the gamma ray source; the other
design is an AWAY detector, which is placed 13 in. away from the gamma ray source. A full-cement
configuration was selected for the simulation environment. The formation properties can vary in lithology,
density, chemical composition, porosity, and other aspects. Various porosities were selected to demon-
strate the formation difference in this paper. The modeling selected 0 pu, 10 pu, 20 pu, 30 pu, 40 pu, and
50 pu sandstone as the wellbore formation. Fig. 3 shows the simulated spectra.

Figure 3CLOSE and AWAY Detector response with different formation porosity

For the CLOSE detector, the spectra over the entire porosity range match one another. There is no
difference from spectrum to spectrum when the porosity of the formation changes. For the AWAY
detector, when the formation porosity increases, the spectra amplitude increases, indicating that the high
energy photons emitted by the source actually interact with the formation behind the cement annulus
before they are scattered back into the detector. An enlarged view (insert in the right panel of Fig. 3) of
the high energy range of the spectra from the AWAY detector configuration reveals more details. In the
energy range from 400 to 500 keV, the spectra shape is the same, regardless of the formation porosity.
This evidence supports the idea that, if using the proper energy range, it is valid to use the AWAY detector
6 SPE-178447-MS

for formation-independent cement evaluation. This observation is of great importance because it includes
the full spectrum and part of the spectrum from a selected energy range to serve as the cement integrity
indicator. That the spectrum is independent of formation properties removes the need of prior knowledge
about the formation behind the casing, which greatly reduces the complexity of cement integrity
evaluation.
The preferable design enables the maximum count rates; this design will have the least sensitivity to
formation properties and the greatest sensitivity to cement integrity. An additional concern includes the
minimum distance requirement between the detector and source to ensure sufficient shielding around the
detector area. In this study, the CLOSE detector configuration was selected for additional cement integrity
evaluation analysis because it has a wider energy range in which the gamma ray spectrum is independent
of the formation properties.
When there is difference in the cement integrity inside the annulus, the measured gamma ray spectrum
changes as well. Fig. 4 shows the plot of the simulated spectra for each of the scenarios shown in Fig. 2.
Because the tool is designed to provide a detector response that is independent of the formation properties,
the difference in the spectra amplitude, count rates, and spectra shape are caused solely by the difference
inside the cement annulus. A heterogeneity profiling factor (HPF) was defined to highlight the spectrum
difference when the cement integrity changes inside the annulus.

Figure 4 Spectra for the full-cement, no-cement and gap-cement scenarios

Generally speaking, the HPF value quantifies the count rates difference, spectrum shape, or spectrum
amplitude variance measured by the gamma ray detector. It highlights the difference induced to the
gamma ray spectrum from the change in the cement integrity. To investigate the volume of void inside
cement, the gamma ray spectra were simulated on a series of basic structures, which was constructed by
increasing the void amount inside the cement annulus. The details of this process include the following:
1. Select a void thickness resolution of 10%.
2. Construct a void with a thickness equal to 10% of the cement thickness, which is 0.15 in. in this
modeling.
3. Place this void adjacent to the casing and leave the remainder of the annulus filled with cement;
the void space is filled with water. This is basic structure A.
4. Construct a void with a thickness equal to 20% of the cement thickness, which is 0.3 in. in this
modeling.
SPE-178447-MS 7

5. Place this void adjacent to the casing and leave the remainder of the annulus filled with cement;
the void space is filled with water. This is basic structure B.
6. Repeat step 5 eight more times. This creates cement annulus with void amount 30%, 40%, . . .,
100%. The value of the last repetition is equivalent to no-cement.
Fig. 5 shows the simulated spectra from these void configurations. When the void amount increases
inside the cement annulus, the count rates increase. The spectra shape over the entire energy range of each
void basic structure is different from one another. To distinguish the spectra feature with each void
amount, a HPF value was defined to depict the spectra shape in the high energy range. The count rates
in the high energy spectrum range, from the high energy photons, are least sensitive to the borehole
environment. This paper computes the correlation coefficient between the two spectra in the high energy
range to identify the different void amount behind casing.

Figure 5Spectra from basic structures for void analysis

The HPF value corresponding to the void volume in the cement annulus is defined as the correlation
coefficients between the normalized gap spectrum and the standard spectrum. A correlation coefficient is
a coefficient that illustrates a quantitative measure of some type of correlation and dependence; it
represents a statistical relationship between two or more observed data values. For the spectra collected
in the same well completion profile, the correlation coefficients between a given wellbore gamma
spectrum and a no-cement spectrum indicates the void amount inside the annulus. It can be computed with
the following steps.
1. Normalize the gap-cement spectrum, full-cement spectrum, and no-cement spectrum to obtain a
unit total count rate from the entire energy range.
2. Divide all of the spectra with the normalized full-cement spectrum. This step amplifies the
difference in the spectrum shape between different void amounts inside cement.
3. Compute the correlation coefficient between the renormalized gap-cement spectrum and the
re-normalized no-cement spectrum. The high energy range is selected to be from 300 keV to 500
keV.
This correlation coefficient between the re-normalized gap cement spectrum and the re-normalized
no-cement spectrum in the selected energy range is the HPF value. This calculation can be performed
through a software program. Fig. 6 illustrates how the spectra are processed to compute HPF.
8 SPE-178447-MS

Figure 6 Calculate the HPF value for gap cement spectrum. Left panel: normalized spectrum in the presence of different amount of
voids inside the cement annulus. Right panel: renormalize the spectra in the left panel by dividing the normalize spectra with the
normalized full-cement spectrum

When the void amount is 100%, which corresponds to no cement at all inside the annulus, the HPF
value is 1. When the void amount is 0%, which corresponds to full cement inside the annulus, the HPF
value is 0. The correlation coefficient between any gap-cement spectrum and the no-cement spectrum is
expected to increase as the void amount inside the annulus increases. This estimate is confirmed by
plotting the void amount vs. the HPF value based on the basic structures results, as shown in Fig. 7. The
dots are the computed HPF values from the constructed basic structures. A smooth curve was fitted
through the data points, which yielded a correspondence between the void amount and HPF values, the
cement void quality curve.

Figure 7Cement void quality curve. The dots are the computed HPF values from the constructed basic structures. The solid line is
the fitted curve. This plot establishes a relation between HPF value and void amount in the cement annulus of a particular well
completion profile

The void amount from a structure with unknown cement integrity from the same well completion
profile can now be computed based on the cement quality curve. Similarly to the calculation previously
described, the HPF from a wellbore gamma ray spectrum can be computed with the following steps:
1. Obtain the gamma ray spectrum from the target under investigation.
SPE-178447-MS 9

2. Obtain the standard gamma ray spectra of the same completion profile, which are the full-cement
spectrum and the no-cement spectrum.
3. Normalize the wellbore gamma ray spectrum, no-cement spectrum, and full-cement spectrum to
a unit value (normalization).
4. Divide the wellbore gamma ray spectrum and no-cement spectrum by the full cement spectrum
(renormalization).
5. Compute the correlation coefficients between the renormalized wellbore gamma ray spectrum and
no-cement spectrum in the range of 300 keV to 500 keV.
The correlation coefficient is the HPF value for the wellbore gamma ray spectrum. Compare the HPF
value to the cement quality curve shown in Fig. 7, to determine the amount of cement void.
Case One
The cement quality curve is used to estimate the cement void amount inside the annulus. Several
cased-hole structures were constructed to simulate gamma ray spectrum. The left panel in Fig. 8 provides
a diagram of one such structure. It includes two discrete cement voids inside the annulus; one void is 18%
of the annulus thickness, and the other is 24% of the annulus thickness. The right panel in Fig. 8 plots the
HPF of the test structures against the cement quality curve. Data point A is the HPF value of the structure
shown in the left panel in Fig. 8. For this example, the true void amount is the sum of both voids, which
amounts to 42%. The void amount estimated based on the HPF value and the quality curve returns a value
of 36%. This small discrepancy is most likely attributable to the position of the void inside the cement
annulus. In the test structure, the void was placed in the middle of the annulus, whereas in the basic
structures, the void was placed adjacent to the casing. To achieve more accurate measurements, future
work will use the information (amplitude and/or total count rates) from other energy ranges of the gamma
ray spectrum to extract position information.

Figure 8 Estimate cement void amount using cement void quality curve and HPF values. Left panel: a cased-hole structure with a
random amount of cement void inside. The void is made of two discrete cement voids. Right panel shows how to find the cement void
amount using quality curve and HPF value. The data point A is the HPF value from structure shown in the left panel

Case Two
The influence of casing thickness was also studied. Using the method previously described, a cement void
quality curve is established for a well completion profile with casing thickness of 0.55 in. Fig. 9 plots both
quality curves from the same well with 0.3 in. casing and 0.55 in. casing. As shown in figure, for the
quality curve from 0.55 in. casing, a HPF value of 1.0 corresponds to a no-cement condition inside the
casing and formation annulus; a HPF value of 0 corresponds to full cement inside the annulus, and a small
HPF value indicates small amount of void inside the cement. This confirms the monotonic dependence of
void amount inside the cement annulus, and the HPF value is valid for different casing thicknesses.
10 SPE-178447-MS

Although extensive work is required to draw further conclusions about the casing thickness effect, Fig.9
indicates that the cement quality curve has a weak dependence on the casing thickness.

Figure 9 Quality curve for different casing thicknesses in the well completion profile

Although the methods were developed using simulated spectra of a particular completion profile, the
methods are applicable to actual cased-hole wellbore logging. In an actual wellbore, the cement void
quality curve can be established through the simulation of a well of the same completion profile. Given
a gamma ray spectrum from an unknown region of the wellbore, its HPF value can be calculated in
association with the two standard spectra, no-cement spectrum, and full cement spectrum. There are two
ways to obtain the standard spectra. The first is to simulate the no-cement and full cement scenarios in
a well of the same completion profile as the actual bore. The second is to use the measured gamma ray
spectra from a section of the as-measured wellbore, which was identified to be full-cement or free pipe
using other logging techniques, such as acoustic bond log. In a comparison of the HPF value to the cement
void quality curve, the void amount at a particular depth is known.

Conclusions
This study simulated the gamma ray spectra from a series of structures of differing cement integrity in a
cased-hole environment using Monte Carlo N-Particle codes. The work included the design of a nuclear
tool of which the detector response is independent of formation properties, and the method to evaluate the
volumetric of void space inside the cement annulus. A heterogeneity profiling factor (HPF) is defined to
differentiate the spectrum shape change caused by varying void amounts inside the cement annulus. Using
the MCNP modeling, the detector spectra from a series of structures of different cement integrity are
simulated. The correspondence between the void amounts and their HPF values establishes a cement
quality curve, which can be used to estimate the volumetric of cement void inside the annulus. The results
obtained in this study indicate that the spacing between the detector and the gamma ray source affects the
energy range in which the gamma ray spectrum is independent of the formation properties. The system
performance is optimized through adjusting the detector source spacing, the detector collimator size and
angle, and the source collimator size and angle to achieve the greatest sensitivity to the annulus properties
and the least sensitivity to the formation properties. For a gamma ray spectrum measured in a given
cased-hole environment, with the full-cement and no-cement standard spectra from the same wellbore, its
HPF value can be calculated. Referring to the quality curve of the same well completion profile, an
estimate of the amount of cement void can be found.
SPE-178447-MS 11

Further analysis reveals that the amount of void inside the cement monotonically depends on the HPF
values for a particular well completion profile. A series of basic structures were constructed with differing
amounts of voids inside the cement annulus. The HPF value for each void amount was computed and
corresponded to the void amount. A quality curve was established, and its validity was tested using the
spectrum from a cement structure with random void amount.

Acknowledgments
The authors thank Halliburton for allowing the publication of this work.

References
Batcheller, G. W. 2013. Cement Evaluation Challenges in Horizontal Wells - Guidelines for Providing
Meaningful Data. Presented at the SPE Production and Operations symposium, Oklahoma City,
Oklahoma, USA, 2326 March. Paper SPE-164513-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/164513-MS.
Briesmeister, J. F. 2000. MCNP - A General Monte Carlo N-Particle Transport Code, Version 4C. Los
Alamos National Laboratory. http://permalink.lanl.gov/object/tr?whatinfo:lanl-repo/lareport/
LA-13709-M (accessed 26 August 2016).
Cai, J., Gao, Y., Zhang, M., and Cui, L., et al. 2014. Solution to Cement Integrity Evaluation in
Long-Extended Reach Wells: New Record in the South China Sea. Presented at Offshore
Technology Conference-Asia, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia, 2528 March. Paper OTC-25027-MS.
http://dx.doi.org/10.4043/25027-MS.
Ellis, D., Flaum, C., Marienbach, E., and Roulet, C., et al.1985. Litho-Density Tool Calibration. SPE
J 25 (04): 515520. Paper SPE-12048-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/12048-PA.
Ellis, D. 1990. Neutron and Gamma Ray Scattering Measurements for Subsurface Geochemistry.
Science 250 (4977): 8287.
Havira, R.M. 1982. Ultrasonic Cement Bond Evaluation. Presented at the SPWLA 23rd Annual
Logging Symposium, Corpus Christi, Texas, USA, 6 9 July. Paper SPWLA-1982-N.
Jutten, J. J., and Hayman, A. J. 1993. Microannulus Effect on Cementation Logs: Experiments and
Case Histories. Presented at the SPE Asia Pacific Oil and Gas Conference, Singapore, 8 10
February. Paper SPE-25377-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/25377-MS.
Minette, D. C., Hubner, B. G., Koudelka, J. C., and Schmidt, M. 1986. The Application of Full
Spectrum Gamma-Gamma Techniques to Density/Photoelectric Cross Section Logging. Presented
at the SPWLA 27th Annual Logging Symposium, Houston, Texas, USA, 9 13 June. Paper
SPWLA-1986-DDD.
Moake, G. L. 2011. Using Computer Modeling to Generate Accurate Pe Equations. Presented at the
SPWLA 52nd Annual Logging Symposium, Colorado Springs, Colorado, USA, 14 18 May.
Paper SPWLA-2011-MMM.
Moake, G. L. 1991. A New Approach to Determining Compensated Density and Pe Values with a
Spectral-Density Tool. Presented at the SPWLA 32nd Annual Logging Symposium, Midland,
Texas, USA, 16 19 June. Paper-SPWLA-1991-Z.
Pardue, G. H., and Morris, R. L. 1962. Cement Bond Log-A Study of Cement and Casing Variables.
JPT 15 (05): 545555. Paper SPE-453-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/453-PA.
Shaposhnikov, P. and Findlater, D. 2013. Advanced Techniques in Integrated Cement Evaluation.
Paper presented at the SPWLA 54th Annual Logging Symposium, New Orleans, Louisiana, USA,
2226 June. Paper SPWLA-2013-SSS.
Tittman, J. and Wahl, J. S. 1965. The Physical Foundation of Formation Density Logging (Gamma-
Gamma), Geophysics, 30 (02): 284 294. http://dx.doi.org/10.1190/1.1439574
Wahl, J. S., Tittman, J., Johnstone, C. W., and Alger, R. P. 1964. The Dual Spacing Formation Density
Log. JPT 16 (12): 14111416. Paper SPE-989-PA. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/989-PA.
12 SPE-178447-MS

Watson, C. C. 1983. Numerical Simulation of the Litho-Density Tool Lithology Response. Paper
presented at the SPE Annual Technical Conference and Exhibition, San Francisco, California,
USA, 5 8 October. Paper SPE-12051-MS. http://dx.doi.org/10.2118/12051-MS.
Zak, A. J. and Smith, J. E. 1959. Gamma Ray - Density Logging. Society of Petroleum Engineering;
original copyright of American Institute of Mining, Metallurgical, and Petroleum Engineers has
expired. Paper SPE-1253-G.